Is Freedom Of Expression Worsening In Bangladesh?

SALEEM SAMAD

Freedom of expression in Bangladesh has been a constant feature of our nation’s recent political history.

In the recent past, the global media and organisations at the national front, as well as in the international arena are agog on the issue of freedom of expression.

The international bodies including United Nations, foreign embassies, and human rights groups did not hesitate to be outspoken critics of the state of freedom of expression and also the status of press freedom in Bangladesh.

Well, a section of pro-government intellectuals and news organisations promptly blasted the national and international organisations for damaging the image of the country.

The ruling Awami League and the government agencies rebuked the organisations raising the issue of freedom of expression as a conspiracy against the country, which the authorities describe that freedom and democracy are running parallel and media is enjoying wide freedom.

Frankly speaking, they do not have enough information, nor do they understand the parameters of freedom of expression to counter the global outrage over the draconian laws which is shrinking the space for freedom of expression.

When the election is around the corner in January 2024, the government is poised to promulgate yet another law Telecommunication Regulatory Commission Regulation For Digital, Social Media, and OTT Platforms.

Similarly, the government months before the 2018 parliament elections passed the repressive Digital Security Act.

The cyber security law incorporates blasphemy, defamation and secrecy act which contradicts democracy, secularism, and pluralism.

The notorious Digital Security Act (DSA) criminalises the right to freedom of expression, dissent and critiquing the authority in any digital format. The worst victims were journalists, opposition politicians and netizens (social media users).

Politicians and journalists ranked the highest and were neck-to-neck in terms of those accused – at least 287 politicians and 280 journalists.

The draconian law recorded 1,109 cases filed under the DSA, of which around 60 per cent were over Facebook activities. A total of 2,889 individuals were accused, according to a study by the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS).

This study and other activities of CGS invited the state security agencies to haunt Zillur Rahman, executive director of CGS and a volley of criticism by intellectuals and ruling party politicians.

Meanwhile, the members of the global alliance Media Freedom Coalition (MFC) recently participated by envoys of Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Envoys from member countries of the MFC met early this month in the capital Dhaka to launch the MFC’s Diplomatic Network Initiative for their support of press freedom.

The diplomats discussed the current media landscape, including the censoring of online news portals and recent cases of harassment and intimidation of journalists.

The MFC was established in July 2019 at the Global Conference for Media Freedom and now comprises over 50 member states from six continents that have signed the Global Pledge on Media Freedom.

Last week, the United States Ambassador Peter Haas came down heavily at a discussion on “Online Freedom and Business Investment in Bangladesh” which jolted the upper echelons of the Awami League.

He frankly stated the United States government is concerned about the regulations for digital, social media, and over-the-top platforms the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Information have introduced, as well as the draft Data Protection Act.

What worries is that the “Data Protection Act, if passed with strict data localisation requirements, may force some US companies currently operating in Bangladesh to leave the market.”

The online platform regulations “will similarly dissuade companies from investing in their businesses here, if they face criminal liability for user content.”

The law threatens over 2,000 startup companies to be put out of business, and services that Bangladeshis use millions of times every day could become inaccessible.

The worst of worst came, the statement of Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression was released on 6 February on Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (draft) regulation for digital, social media, and OTT platforms.

Khan categorically said the proposed Data Protection Act is contradictory to Bangladesh’s obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Many of the categories of prohibited content in the draft Regulation are vaguely defined. Such broad and vague definitions as “racially or ethnically objectionable”, “offensive, false, or threatening and insulting or humiliating” or “hurts religious values or sentiment” are well beyond the restrictions permitted by international law.

Such clauses will encourage the removal of content by intermediaries as well as self-censorship among users, thereby having a direct chilling effect on freedom of expression, she observed in her report.

She urged the Bangladesh authorities to provide feedback on how the Digital, Social Media, and OTT Platforms Regulation is consistent with the obligations under international human rights law, especially the requirements of the Covenant.

Will the authority respond to the observation of Special Rapporteur Irene Khan? Bangladesh does not have the culture to respond to queries from international bodies.

First published in The News Times, Dhaka, Bangladesh, February 12, 2023

Saleem Samad, is an award winning independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Threat of Legal Action Chills Journalism in Bangladesh

Activists hold placards during a demonstration demanding the repeal of the Digital Security Act, in Dhaka on February 27, 2021

BILAL HUSSAIN

SRINAGAR, INDIA: Bangladesh's Digital Security Act is hastening the country's decline in press freedom, with authorities using the legislation to jail journalists and others who are critical of the government and its response to the coronavirus pandemic, local media and analysts say.

In 2020 alone, the law was used to charge around 900 people, including several journalists, according to Amnesty International. 

Bangladesh's information minister, Hasan Mahmud, has said in interviews that the act is needed to protect people online. But rights groups and local journalist associations say the Digital Security Act and other laws, including the Official Secrets Act that was used to detain an investigative reporter in May, are adding to pressures for journalism.  

Activists shout slogans during a protest against the Digital Security Act (DSA), in Dhaka on March 3, 2021, following the death…

Kamal Ahmed, a Dhaka-based freelance journalist, said that even before the widely criticized law was passed in 2018, the country was on a downhill trajectory.   

The space for critical journalism has been shrinking along with a distrust in the election process, following a 2013 vote boycotted by the opposition, Ahmed said. The government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has become more authoritarian and intolerant to criticism, which is driving the persecution of the voices of dissent and criticism, he added.  

According to media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Hasina's government has "taken a markedly tough line with media." RSF cited the Digital Security Act and prosecutions related to pandemic coverage when it ranked Bangladesh 152 out of 180, where 1 is freest, on its annual press freedom index. 

The Center for Governance Studies, an independent Bangladeshi research group, says the Digital Security Act has been used most against opposition politicians, followed closely by journalists. 

In an April report, the organization concluded that the law has "disproportionately impacted the journalists" and is an obstacle to press freedom. Its data found "that activists and supporters of the ruling party have been able to create a frightening situation using the law."  

Bangladesh's Sampadak Parishad, or Editors' Council, was one of the groups that opposed the law from the start. "Our fear is now a nightmare-reality for the mass media," the council said after arrests of Ahmed Kabir Kishore, a cartoonist, and Mushtaq Ahmed, a writer, in May 2020. 

Bangladeshi students clash with police during a protest in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Monday, March 1, 2021. About 300 student…

Mushtaq Ahmed was denied bail several times and died in prison on February 25. 

His death and the ramping up of prosecutions is leading to calls for the law to be reformed and press freedom to be better protected.  

During the pandemic, dozens of journalists who covered corruption or reported on cases of food aid being taken from poorer regions, were hit with legal complaints, said Saleem Samad, an award-winning Dhaka-based journalist. "Those who dared critiquing of the pandemic health care management were also prosecuted under repressive [Digital Security Act]," Samad said. 

The act has resulted in widespread self-censorship, especially among the newsroom gatekeepers, Samad said, adding that in-depth stories on corruption and accountability of elected representatives or lawmakers are missing in the media.  

Bangladesh's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not respond to VOA's emailed requests for comment.  

Speaking after the death of Mushtaq Ahmed, Information Minister Mahmud said that he and the government are "cautious … that no journalist is victimized by  misuse of the act." Authorities have also said they are reviewing the law to ensure it cannot be abused.  

Legal challenges 

The Digital Security Act is not the only legislation that media and analysts say is being used to target critical reporting. Journalists can also face charges under the sedition law and Official Secrets Act. 

Samad has firsthand experience of this, having being detained for several months on sedition charges while working on a documentary for Britain's Channel 4 Unreported World series in November 2002. The journalist ultimately had to leave the country and said he returned in 2010, only when his case was finally quashed.   

More recently, reporter Rozina Islam of the Prothom Alo newspaper was detained under the 1923 Official Secrets Act, following a complaint lodged by a Health Ministry official.

Bangladeshi journalist Rozina Islam, center, is escorted by police to a court in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tuesday, May 18, 2021…

Bangladesh Arrests Journalist Known for Unearthing Graft

Islam is known for reporting on corruption involving the Ministry of Health and others

Islam was charged with photographing government papers in violation of the act and penal code. She was detained briefly on May 17 at the Shahbagh police station in Dhaka and could face up to 14 years in prison or even the death penalty if convicted. 

Sajjad Sharif, managing editor of Prothom Alo, told VOA the court has granted his reporter bail.  

"She is right now admitted in the hospital and is undergoing physiological treatment as she was mentally harassed and traumatized as well during her detention," Sharif said. 

Naman Aggarwal, the global digital identity lead and Asia Pacific policy counsel at digital rights organization Access Now, said both the Official Secrets Act and Digital Security Act provide the government with wide powers to contain critical speech under the camouflage of protecting national security or cybersecurity. 

The government is able to take down content it deems "fake, obscene, or defaming" or damaging to the state or religious sentiment, and prosecute people based on ambiguous standards, Aggarwal said.  

A Bangladeshi reporter based in Dhaka, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told VOA that a few years back only a few politicians showed their anger by showing muscle power or via the legal system, but nowadays even high up officials are taking action. "It becomes quite harder to do corruption-related news nowadays," the reporter said.   

Mohammad Tauhidul Islam, a special correspondent for the business desk of Maasranga Television, believes that journalists are becoming more cautious. "The journalists are maintaining an undeclared line not to question government high ups." Islam said, who is of no relation to Prothom Alo reporter Rozina Islam.  

Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington-based research group, told VOA he believes the pressure on media is driven by Dhaka's desire to control public narratives. Authoritarian moves in recent years include efforts to rein in any form of dissent, including from the political opposition and civil society, he said. 

To its credit, Bangladesh's media corps has responded with loud and frequent condemnations that run the risk of prompting additional government crackdowns, Kugelman said.  

"The media in Bangladesh has not shied away from taking a strong stand on behalf of press freedoms," Kugelman said. "In fact it has been leading from the front in this effort, with press freedom watchdogs abroad adding their support."  

First published in Voice Of America (VOA), 1 June 2021

Cybersecurity law to end harassment?

SALEEM SAMAD

The week-long street protests and pro-government intellectuals, academics, rights activists, and defenders of media rights continued to ventilate their anger over the death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed and simultaneously demands to repeal the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), the government in damage-control mode has hinted to repair the draconian law.

Law Minister Anisul Huq has said that the government is taking measures so that no one can be arrested or sued under the DSA before the investigation, he told BBC Bangla radio.

The DSA came to the forefront after the death of writer Ahmed, who was detained under the draconian law and died in Kashimpur High-Security Jail in Gazipur last week.

The Minister assured that they trying to reach a conclusion where no one can be arrested before investigation.

Admitting the misuse of law, the minister assured that they [government] are taking measures to bring an end to it.

For the first time in the country, there is a repressive cybersecurity law that only protects the government, politicians, and bureaucrats, but not the citizens.

If the controversial DSA could provide security to the citizens, the government must come forward and state who are those citizens benefitted from the draconian law.

The government cannot deny that the law arbitrarily targets critics, netizens, and journalists.

Not surprised that the law has never slammed charges against ‘waz-mongers (Islamic evangelists)’ and seems to have given immunity under the repressive law.

When the Mullah ‘wazi’ makes hate speech against the Ekushey book fair, Ekushey February, elective democracy, gender quality, Independence Day, liberation war sculptures, liberation war, national anthem, national constitution, national flag, Pahela Baishak, pluralism, school textbooks, secularism, Victory Day, women leadership, women’s empowerment, anger the people who suffered and contributed to the liberation.

They dared to challenge the elected government, demand to garbage the state constitution and instead override with Holy Quran and Sunnah as guiding principle of the nation-state, and to declare the nation an Islamic Republic, which was born from a bloody war on the principles of democracy, secularism and pluralism.

Such hate-speech challenges the sacrifice made by the people of Bangladesh – the three million martyrs, more than 400,000 women victims of rape, and 10 million war refugees.

The district administration nor the local police chief monitor the Waz-Mehfils, which gives them an upper hand to deliver hate-speech among tens and thousands of disciples. The audience enlarges when the sermons are uploaded to Youtube and Facebook, which are owned by infidels.

Despite hate-speech by the Mullahs are widely available on social media, but they are never punished. They are not slammed under cybersecurity laws.

Should the government be afraid of the Mullahs? The wazi’s overtly opposed secularism, pluralism, democracy, and are threats to national unity.

The mango-people understand that like the writer Ahmed, who dared to criticise the government’s pandemic management is a soft target for legal harassment.

More than 2,000 people have been booked under the undemocratic law since 2018, including folk singers, children, doctors, netizens, and not the least but the last are the journalists.

The law gives a wide range of authority to a junior police officer to barge into a newspaper or a media office. They can confiscate digital devices, like computers/laptops, WiFi routers, external hard disks, and mobile phones without any warrant.

The accused persons are blamed for tarnishing the image of the nation or have attempted to ‘destabilise’ the state.

Such lambasting accusations against the critics, writers, netizens, and journalists are sweeping statements. At the end of the day, the police investigators do not have any evidence, nor could they list any eyewitness to the alleged cybercrime.

On the other hand, the cybercrime tribunal is ill-equipped and does not have digital equipment, nor any trained personnel to determine what the accused has committed through social media.

The police investigators also do not have the skill and experience to understand what digital offence has been committed.

As the law allows, the detained accused should be kept in prison until a competent court grants bail, or held in custody to stand trial at the cybercrime tribunal.

Meanwhile, civil society and rights groups have reiterated to scrap the controversial cybersecurity law, which shrinks the space for freedom of expression, free speech, press freedom, and right to critique.

First published in the Dhaka Courier, 5 March 2021

Saleem Samad, is an independent journalist, media rights defender, recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He could be reached at <saleemsamad@hotmail.com>; Twitter @saleemsamad

Jammu & Kashmir continues to face violations of human rights and free speech

Kashmiri journalists protest against alleged harassment by Jammu and Kashmir police - Outlook/Umer Asif

SALEEM SAMAD

On the morning of August 5, 2019, the few that had access to dish TV watched in shock the proceedings of the Indian Parliament, which abrogated the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and stripped it of its limited autonomy.

The restive Kashmir Valley is already one of the most militarized zones in the world, where suspicion, distrust, and rumour galore brew among the 13 million residents.

“Working has been hell for journalists in Kashmir for the past year,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of the Asia-Pacific desk of Paris-based media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

For J&K’s residents, the state became the centre of the world’s biggest news and information blackout, with all forms of communication -- internet, mobile data, TV, and fixed-line telephone -- suddenly suspended. This unprecedented internet shutdown began on the night of August 4, 2019, on the eve of the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution of India, which granted special status to the state of J&K.

The South Asia Media Solidarity Network (SAMSN) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) deplored Kashmir Valley’s one year under shutdown.

On August 11, a special committee set up by India’s Supreme Court recommended the restoration of 4G internet services in J&K, and access to high-speed internet on a “trial basis in a calibrated manner in specified limited areas to assess the impact on the security situation” after August 15.

However, the government in New Delhi and the J&K Union Territory administration (Delhi-appointed governor in Srinagar) told the court that while security concerns and threats from the region continued to remain high, 4G internet services would not be made available.

Further fuel to the fire is the J&K government’s new media policy for journalists. The policy announced in June has come under strong criticism, with political parties stating that it will give the government an upper hand to militate against journalists and muzzle free speech. “It’s an assault on press freedom,” writes Naseer Ganai in Outlook magazine.

The policy says that background checks of newspaper editors, publishers, and reporters will be carried out before the empanelment of newspapers, media organizations, and outlets. The policy gives power to the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) to examine the content of print, electronic, and other media for “fake news, plagiarism, and unethical or anti-national activities.”

On the other hand, Tapan Kumar Bose, an independent filmmaker and a human rights activist based in Delhi, expressed his deep concern over those detained during the crackdowns and search operations, and those picked up from highways, with promises to relatives of their safe return -- the releases rarely happen.

Since 1990, thousands of habeas corpus petitions have been filed before the J&K High Court. “There is a total breakdown of the law and order machinery. I shall not feel shy to say that this court has been made helpless by so-called law enforcement agencies. Nobody bothers to obey the order of the court,” grieves Tapan Bose.

Besides Kashmir valley, Punjab, Nagaland, Manipur, and Assam are the worst places in India where enforced disappearances are rampant and appalling. Usually, security forces are in denial about those in custody and do not even register complaints about missing persons.

The relatives of the detainees move from pillar to post in J&K after being refused help for year after year. The relatives are frustrated and tired, but angry; they eventually abandon the search for their loved ones, and one day their cries go silent.

Tapan Bose, who made a documentary with Zahir Raihan during the 1971 Liberation War, stated that India’s domestic law allows impunity for enforced disappearances in states such as Manipur, J&K, and Punjab.

He says there is denial of justice and the right to know the truth, but de jure immunity minimizes victims’ access to the right to justice. The perpetrators are rarely held accountable for their acts.

First published in the Dhaka Tribune on 14 September 2020

Saleem Samad is an independent journalist, media rights defender, and recipient of Ashoka Fellowship and Hellman-Hammett Award. He can be reached at saleemsamad@hotmail.com; Twitter @saleemsamad

Weaponizing Media Regulation

S. BINODKUMAR SINGH

On May 16, 2020, Police arrested two people from the Lamchari village of Matlab Dakkhin upazila (sub-District) in Chandpur District in a case filed under the Digital Security Act (DSA). The arrestees – Sumon Biswas and Adhir Chandra Mallik – had been allegedly making derogatory comments about Islam, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Bangladesh Police on Facebook for the preceding few days.

On May 6, 2020, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) arrested cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore, writer Mushtaq Ahmed, and two others – Didarul Islam Bhuiyan, an activist of a platform called 'Rashtrachinta', and Minhaz Mannan Emon, a businessman – under DSA, allegedly for making anti-Government posts on Facebook, from the capital, Dhaka city. A total of 11 persons were accused in the case filed under DSA. The seven others accused in the case were Tasnim Khalil, Shahed Alam, Saer Zulkarnain, Ashiq Imran, Phillipp Schuhmacher, Shapan Wahid and Asif Mohiuddin. These seven live outside Bangladesh.

On May 5, 2020, Mahtab Uddin Talukder, Sunamganj District correspondent of private television channel SATV, was arrested from his residence under the DSA for posting a status on his Facebook page allegedly defaming Sunamganj-1 Constituency’s ruling Awami League (AL) Member of Parliament (MP) Moazzem Hossain Ratan. The MP had been interrogated by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) officials on February 18, 2020, for his alleged involvement in money laundering and the casino business.

Among various provisions of the Digital Security Act, the followings are the more alarming:

Section 17 Punishment for Illegal Entrance in Critical Information Infrastructure, etc.-(1) If any person intentionally or knowingly in any Critical information infrastructure - a. Illegally enters, or b. By means of illegal entrance, harms or destroys or renders inactive the infrastructure or tries to do so, then the above activity of that person will be an offense under the Act. (2) If any person of Sub Section (1) - a. Commits any offense within the Clause (a) then, the person will be penalized by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or by fine not exceeding BDT 2.5 million or with both. b. Commits any offense within Clause (b) then, the person will be penalized by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or with fine not exceeding BDT 10 million or with both. (3) If any person commits the offense mentioned in sub-section (1) for the second time or recurrently commits the offense then, he will be punished with lifetime imprisonment or with fine not exceeding BDT 50 million or with both.

Section 29 Publishing and distributing defamatory information, etc.-(1) If a person publishes or distributes any defamatory information mentioned in section 499 of the Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) via a website or any other electronic format, they will get a maximum penalty of 3 years in jail or BDT 5 lakh in fine, or both.

Section 32 Offence and penalty for breach of Official Secrets-(1) If a person commits a crime or assists someone in committing a crime under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act No XIX of 1923) via a computer, digital device, computer network, digital network or any other digital media, they will get a maximum penalty of 14 years in jail or BDT 2.5 million in fines, or both. (2) If a person commits a crime mentioned in the sub-clause 1 for a second time or repeatedly, they will be sentenced to life in prison or a maximum fine of BDT 10 million, or both.

• In addition to the sweeping provisions themselves, it is the protracted jail sentences prescribed that are a cause of worry and source of intimidation. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, there have been more than 1,000 cases filed under the DSA since it was introduced in 2018.
• Indeed, the Sampadak Parishad (Editors' Council), a nationwide professional association of newspaper Editors, has been protesting against the DSA since it came into effect on October 8, 2018. The Editors' Council identified fundamental flaws in the DSA:
• In trying to make a law to prevent crimes through digital devices and provide security in the digital sphere, the act ends up policing media operations, censoring content and controlling media freedom and freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by our constitution.
• The act gives unlimited power to the police to enter premises, search offices, bodily search persons, seize computers and networks, servers, and everything related to the digital platforms. According to the Act, the police can arrest anybody on suspicion without warrant and do not need any approval of any authorities.
• The act suffers from vagueness and uses many terms that can be misinterpreted and used against the media.
• DSA will create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation which will make journalism and especially investigative journalism virtually impossible.
• Other than media professionals, the law will create panic among all users of computers, computer networks, etc.

On June 18, 2019, Asia Internet Coalition, a Coalition of which Facebook, Google, Amazon, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Yahoo!, among others, are members, pointed out that Bangladesh’s DSA creates several obstacles to the conducive use of the internet ecosystem due to several vague obligations, unchecked powers, disproportionate penalties, and unworkable compliance requirements.

DSA has become a custom-made judicial weapon for silencing ‘troublesome’ journalists and has created an environment of fear and intimidation under which normal functioning of journalists has become extremely risky, if not impossible. Not surprisingly, since the enactment of DSA, self-censorship has reached unprecedented levels because editors are reluctant to risk imprisonment or the closure of their media outlets.

Further, blocking access to news websites and consequently stifling press freedom is another developing phenomenon in Bangladesh. In December 2019, authorities in Bangladesh blocked access to Netra News, a Sweden-based investigative journalism portal, within three days of the outlet carrying allegations of corruption against Obaidul Quader, the country’s Minister of Road Transport and Bridges, and General Secretary of the ruling AL. In March 2019, the Bangladesh Government blocked Al Jazeera's English news website hours after it published an article detailing the alleged involvement of Tarique Ahmed Siddique, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Security Adviser and head of the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), the country's military intelligence agency, in the disappearance of three men as part of a business dispute involving his wife. In December 2018, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) had ordered 54 news portals to be blocked to prevent spread of propaganda ahead of the December 30 National Election. In November 2017, Indian news website The Wire was cut off after it published a story on the alleged role of the DGFI in the disappearance of an academic, Mubashar Hasan.

Meanwhile, radical Islamist militants continue to murder journalists and bloggers who dare to defend an overly secular vision of society. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), a total of at least 36 journalists and bloggers have been killed since the commencement of the 2013 Shahbagh Movement. The last incident of killing was on June 11, 2018, in which Shahzahan Bachchu (60), an outspoken proponent of secular principles and owner of a publishing house 'Bishaka Prokashoni' was gunned down in his ancestral village, Kakaldi in Munshiganj District.

Unsurprisingly, Reporters Sans Frontières, in its 2020 World Press Freedom Index dropped Bangladesh to 151st out of 180 countries – the lowest ranking it has ever received. It was at the 150th position in 2019 and 146th in 2018.

Legitimate concerns regarding the abuse of the Internet and social media, particularly by extremist and terrorist formations as well as by unscrupulous political and criminal elements, do require legislation for the regulation of these media. But the sweeping provisions of DSA, and the use against journalists carrying out legitimate investigations and reportage, cannot be part of a legitimate response to these concerns. The arbitrary arrests and a crackdown on freedom of expression under the draconian DSA raise critical questions of intent and accountability of the Government. Ensuring the freedom of the Media, as well as the safety of media professionals and the civil discourse, both from state intimidation as well as from the threat from radical Islamist forces, even as the state is empowered to act against intentional malfeasance, must be the objective of both legislation and practice with regard to regulation of the Media. Freedom of the Media and acceptance of criticism are crucial for the survival of democracy in Bangladesh.

The article was first published in the Volume 18, No. 47, May 18, 2020 of SOUTH ASIA INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

S. Binodkumar Singh is a Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi, India

Harassment, Arrest, Intimidation of Bauls threatens Freedom of Expression

GLOBAL MEDIA STATEMENT

[18 February 2020]

We, the media rights defenders of international and national freedom of expression organizations are concerned regarding the recent harassment, detention, and intimidation of the traditional Bauls, the mystic singers of Bangladesh.

In the month of January 2020, Sufi folk singer Baul Shariat Sarkar was arrested under the draconian Digital Security Act, 2018 when an Islamic cleric filed a blasphemy case against Sarkar for "stating that music is not forbidden in the Quran."

Similarly, two cases were filed against Baul Rita Dewan for “hurting religious sentiments” of the Muslims for her Pala-Gaan (logical debate through folk songs) performance. In fear of retaliation and personal harm, she long with her two young daughters made a public apology.

In both cases, a vested group is misusing the Digital Security Act, 2018, as a weapon to punish minorities of other faiths, folk singers and social media users too. If convicted, the Cyber Tribunal (Bangladesh) can give a verdict of a hefty fine and jail-term for up to seven years.

Notwithstanding, the media rights defenders had been warning the authorities about the misuse of the draconian Digital Security Act, 2018 which criminalizes freedom of expression and has been applied to detain several journalists, writers, poets, publishers, and bloggers.

Surely, the Islamists are a serious threat to the Baul community as they often preach hate against the women, people of other faiths and of course music and cultural events. They intimidate the Baul singers to silence the traditional cultural heritage.

The question and answer session in Pala-Gaan used mystical and esoteric language, which may be misunderstood by the audience which focuses on external, literal interpretations of Sufi interpretation of the society.

Conventionally the mystic song is an icon of rich folklore tradition, which is imbibed into Bangla heritage and must be protected as a cultural tradition.

To engage in Pala-Gaan, the mystic Sufi singers must have deep knowledge of different faiths, spiritualism, philosophy and contemporary issues.

The Bauls are essential in strengthening democracy, freedom of expression, philosophical debate, as well as tolerance in diversity.

Instead of protecting the folklore heritage, the draconian laws challenge the century-old tradition of freedom of belief and freedom of expression.

The nation-state was founded on the principles of secularism, pluralism, and equality for all to promote harmony among the diverse communities and cultural traditions of the land.

We are deeply disturbed that the intimidation on the Bauls violates the basic freedom of expression and freedom of faith.

We urge the Government of Bangladesh to protect its citizens from the radicalized religious groups.

We expect that the Government must act in upholding the unique traditions of secularism, freedom of faith, and tolerance in a bid to strengthen the visions of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of Bangladesh.

Endorsed and signed by Media Rights Defenders:

1. Dr. Aireen Jaman, General Secretary, PEN International, Bangladesh, London;

2. Faruq Faisel, South Asia Regional Director, Article 19, London;

3. Saleem Samad, Correspondent, Reporter Without Borders (RSF), Paris;

4. Ahmed Swapan Mahmud, CEO, VOICE, Dhaka

5. Khairuzzaman Kamal, Representative International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Brussels;

6. Mainul Islam Khan, Representative, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York;

7. Biplob Mostafiz, Member, Mukto Prakash (FExB), Media Rights Defender;

8. Sayeed Ahmad, Representative, Front Line Defenders, Dublin, Ireland;

9. Ahamad Ullah, Member, Bangladesh Manabadhikar Sangbadik Forum (BMSF), Dhaka;

10.GM Mourtaza, CEO, CCD Bangladesh; Rajshahi.

11.Jana Syeda Gulshan Ferdous, somewhereinblog.net

For more information, please contact Saleem Samad: +88-01711-530207; email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com OR, Faruq Faisel: +88-01730-710267, emails: faruq@article19.org

Impunity: Bangladesh's Scorecard Grows Longer

SALEEM SAMAD

Bangladesh has an appalling record of press freedom and freedom of expression since the country switched to Parliamentary Democracy in 1991 after a decade and half of military dictatorship.

According to impunity scorecard, 35 journalists, bloggers, freelancers have been killed in Bangladesh since 1992 to 2019, according to a draft Impunity Scorecard 2019 prepared by Freedom of Expression, Bangladesh (FExB).

The highest numbers of journalists, bloggers, freelancers, and media practitioners were killed, at least 5 persons each in 2004 and 2015.

However, there were zero casualties for seven consecutive years in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2019. The zero casualty phenomenons are difficult to determine. A conclusive statement could only be made after extensive anthropological research.

Unfortunately, most of the deaths are caused by non-state actors. Their mission was to "shoot the messenger", to stop exposing the underworld crimes, smuggling, left extremists and radicalized Islamists. The predators of journalists remain mysterious, nameless and unidentified non-state actors, which is the biggest threat to journalists in Bangladesh. Bangladesh law enforcing agencies and the judiciary have equally failed to deliver justice for crimes against journalists and bloggers.

Police authorities investigating the murder cases says that the motives behind all these killings could not be confirmed, therefore the prime suspect, the predators could not be nabbed.

First published in The New Nation, November 09, 2019

Saleem Samad, Bangladesh Correspondent, Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
email: saleemsamad@hotmail.com

Condemn Criminalizing Freedom Of Expression

Media Statement

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NETWORK OF BANGLADESH

Media rights defenders of Bangladesh in strong words deplore the culture of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of free media.

[Dhaka, 13 October 2019]

We, the media rights defenders are worried about criminalizing freedom of expression, shrinking space for freedom of thought and impunity enjoyed by perpetrators.

We, are shocked that recently Abrar Fahad, a 21-year-old second-year student of a premier educational institution in the country, the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) became a victim of freedom of expression, intolerance to opinion and culture of impunity from punishment.

We, lost words to describe that he was brutally tortured to death by fellow students of BUET, for his Facebook post in the small hours of October 7, which was found offensive by the perpetrators, mostly members of the ruling student organization, the Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL).

We, stated that the gruesome murder is yet another glaring example of an attack on free speech, media freedom, freedom of thought, human rights and the rule of law in Bangladesh.

We, understand that the police in their preliminary investigation found that Abrar was tortured to death after the suspects (BCL members) were annoyed for his Facebook post, which was deemed critical of recently concluded Bangladesh deals with India.

We, are appalled that the BCL leaders allegedly seized his mobile phone and laptop and checked his Facebook account and found the status posted at 5:32 pm on October 5 was offensive, which was deemed offensive.

We, are unequivocal to state that the perpetrators of gruesome murders of Facebook users, bloggers, writers and journalists have escaped justice were due to the culture of impunity.

We, have documented that scores of journalists, human rights defenders, writers, and bloggers who mostly apolitical were slammed for unlawful online expression under the draconian cybercrime laws which criminalize online dissent and critiquing public affairs in Bangladesh.

We, deplore that Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, later overshadowed with a new draconian law Digital Security Act 2018, has been widely criticized, because the law dares to curb freedom of expression and incite self-censorship.

We, recorded that soon after the notorious ICT law was enacted, many Facebook users were harassed by henchmen of the ruling political party and later arrested by police. The number of cases related to cybercrimes and filed under the Digital Security Act is on the rise.

We, reiterate our demand that the Government of Bangladesh must repeal the Digital Security Act, and squash all cases against people arbitrarily arrested under the act.

We, condemn the harassment of free speech practitioners under cyber-crime laws, which have created a culture of fear among citizens and self-censorship in mainstream media.

We, believe that in the absence of freedom of expression, the space for free speech is shrinking.

Endorsed and signed by members of Freedom of Expression Network of Bangladesh:

1.    Faruq Faisel, Article 19, Bangladesh

2.    Ahmed Swapan Mahmud, VOICE

3.    Saleem Samad, Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

4.   Khairuzzaman Kamal, International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)

5.   Dr. Aireen Jaman, Pen International, Bangladesh

6.   Sayeed Ahmad, Centre for Social Activism

7.    Pulack Ghatak, Media Rights Journalist

8.    Mainul Islam Khan, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

9.   Ahamed Ullah, Bangladesh Manabadhikar Sangbadik Forum (BMSF)

For more information, please contact Ahmed Swapan: +88-01711-881919; Saleem Samad: +88-01711-530207; Faruq Faisel: +88-01730-710267, or send emails: saleemsamad@hotmail.com; ahmed.swapan@gmail.com; faruq@article19.org

A Retrogressive Policy

It will throttle media, damage democracy and ultimately damage Bangladesh growth potential

MAHFUZ ANAM

In any conflict between free media and government, the latter wins in the short run while the former wins in the end. But a lot of valuable nation building time is lost in the intermittent period.

Government wins initially because it has all the fund and coercive machinery of state at its disposal to cajole, bribe, intimidate, threat and intern people and force its way.

Freedom and free media win in the end because people rally behind them-which is necessarily a time consuming process- and take them to victory.

This lesson of history our government does not seem to have learnt at their great cost and tragically ours too.

Free media has been one of the most significant gains of independent Bangladesh. It flourished after the restoration of democracy in December 1991. Today Bangladesh has a healthy media environment which is free, responsible and competitive.

Why a new Broadcast Policy?

Of the total media scene, the recent growth of Bangladesh’s broadcast media has been brilliant and stunning. Yes, it has many more hurdles to cross but the progress the broadcast media has made in the last two decades is nothing short of a miracle. Television has changed the way public is habituated to get news. Their “Live” coverage is now widely appreciated by the people and has added to the accountability process of the government. I recall with pride how our TV journalists earned the appreciation of the people of Bangladesh by giving round the clock coverage of all the recent mega events including that of Rana Plaza tragedy that helped to create a global support for our RMG sector. Broadcast media’s live and “from the spot” coverage has brought in a new freshness to news that the public would never have got otherwise.

There is a similar story of the FM radio.

On-line and digital media platforms’ story is slightly mixed, and cannot be covered in the present paper.

All this was achieved without the recently proposed “policy”. TV stations and FM radios were guided by the existing laws, policies, especially the guidelines given during issuing the broadcasting license. So if the existing rules and guidelines helped to create the TV and radio “revolutions” then why go for any new policy, especially when it runs the risk of thwarting the growth process. The only justification of a new policy can be that it will help the “growth of broadcasting industry” even further.

The government says that it was initiated at the request of the journalists’ community. This is a fact. But the demand was for a policy to be formulated by an Independent Broadcast Commission in consultation with all the stake holders especially media practitioners and owners. It was never conceived to be formulated by the bureaucrats with cosmetic representation from stake holders whose suggestions were ultimately largely ignored.

The Broadcast Policy

As the gazette notification shows there are seven main sections (অধ্যায়) of the broadcast policy.

The section on “aims and purpose” (উদ্দেশ্য ও লক্ষ্য) incorporate some core values that we share. The first five items from 1.2.1 upto 1.2.5 we welcome and endorse. However we feel that it has been unduly prolonged and there are many items that can either be deleted or merged with others.

The second sections deals with the Licensing process which says a detailed guideline on the licensing process will be worked by the Broadcast Commission as and when it is setup.

Sections three, four and five deal with content of the media channels. These sections have nearly 70 items.

The policy goes into details of content much of which can be subjected to multiple interpretations that can easily lead to distorting a free flow of information. Take for example section 3.2.1 which says “ anti-state and anti-public interest” news cannot be broadcast. We could not agree more. But who will decide what constitutes “anti-state and anti-public interest” news. In dictatorships, the government decides but democracy it is left to the media under the overarching principles of the constitution of every country.

Take the next provision 3.2.2. which says in “discussion programmes distorted or false information” should not be given. This any Broadcasting station worth its names will do on their own, as they do now.

Item 3.2.3 …….. We already broadcast speeches of the President and the Prime Minister. Why should there be the other impositions like emergency weather, health bulletin, press note and other “important national events that have public interest” Again anything of public interest the broadcasters will use because they want to hold their audience. So there is no need for such provisions.

3.5.1. says ……” voluntary work and development activities will have to be broadcast”

Why? Each channel will chose content according to its audience. Why should similar content be imposed on all channels?

The policy goes into details of such items as “Development work” “entertainment programmes” “sports and educational programmes etc.

One very dangerous aspect of the policy is the restrictions it imposes on advertising contents. While there must be guidelines on what can and what cannot be advertised, but the specific guidelines given in the policy will heavily restrict the flow of advertisement, affecting revenue of the broadcasters leading to weakening their financial viability. At present no advertisement is carried by TV stations that can be said to have necessitated such a policy.

Under section six deals with “other issues dealing with Broadcasting. This section contains some dangerous elements that can lead to restrictions on freedom of the media. Here are some examples along with our comments.

Item 5.1.4 (Print Bangla version) Any “military, non-military and government information” that can threaten the security of the State cannot be broadcast.

We can understand “military” information but why “non-military and government information” cannot be published.

Item 5.1.5 (print Bangla version) Anything demeaning to the armed forces, law enforcement agencies and government officials who can punish people for criminal offences can't be broadcast.

Imagine the absurdity of this policy. If it was already in place then we could not have written about the ten trucks arms haul where NSI and DGFI (according to confessions of accused) officials were directly involved.

We also could not have written about the 21 August attempted assassination of the present PM in which three former IGPs, two ex-NSI bosses and three former CID officials and high ranking officials of army and navy against whom charges have been framed.

According to policy approved by the cabinet we cannot write about death in police custody or torture, abuse of power by military, RAB, DGFI, intelligence agencies and government officials who can "punish". If this law is enforced then we can never write about cases like the recent 7 murders in Narayanganj where RAB officials were involved, the recent killing of a garment waste trader who was tortured to death by Mirpur Thana SI. We cannot report incidences of cross-fire, torture in remand, etc.

Would Limon – the innocent school boy who was bullet hit by RAB and who the latter tried for months to stigmatize as a terrorist- have ever received justice if media did not expose the RAB?

5.1.9 (use Bangla) Mutiny, chaos, violent incidents ... can't be aired?

"Mutiny" we understand and we may discuss how to cover it.

But what is meant by "chaos" and "violent incidents". According to this policy we cannot cover unrest or show footage of violence. It appears that this policy expects the TV stations to broadcast song and dance episodes while political activist uproot railway lines, burn our factories. So the extensive footage showing the opposition BNP-Jamaat throwing fire bombs into running buses during pre- 2014 election violence was all“wrong” and the so-called “loggi- Baitha” related violence of the AL during their movement in 2006 would not allowed in the future?

In the context of our politics it is always the opposition that organizes agitational programmes that often results into violent clashes with the law enforcement agencies. To prevent its coverage will mean basically no coverage of opposition because it will depict“chaos” and “violence”. Would coverage of the recent police action against workers demanding area pay that resulted into police beating them be permitted under the present policy?

5.1.7( use Bangla) Broadcasting anything that may hamper friendly relations with foreign countries is to be BANNED.

If this law existed then we couldn't have covered Myanmar’s sending warships to threaten our Navy that was protecting our maritime boundary back in 2007/8. We couldn't have covered the "Felany" incident or the regular incidents (now significantly lessoned) of border killing by Indian BSF. Is writing about our due share of Teesta Water and criticising India for responding to be permitted? Or it would be banned in the name of jeopardizing our friendly relations.

By the same law we could not have covered the news of killing, torture, rape, or illegal detention of our expatriate workers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Malaysia or any of the foreign countries where they work in the name of “friendly relations”. So all our expatriate workers, on whose remittance we flout the story of "huge reserve" are to be left at the mercy of whims and good wishes of host governments and our most timid and sometimes corrupt commercial attaches?

4.2.8 ( use Bangla) No scene can be shown in advertisements that are not environmentally friendly.

What is wrong with advertisement showing polluted rivers, uncollected garbage, or cutting of tree and urging people to desist from such practices?

6. Misleading and untrue information must be avoided. About “untrue” information, of course they should be avoided. If by chance unverified information is broadcast then immediate corrective steps are taken along with appropriate apology.

About "misleading" information can we match what goes in the name of debate inside the parliament? More often than not, it is the government and not the broadcasters that indulge in half truths and sometimes outright lies.

The truth is the Broadcast Policy passed by the cabinet has had two mindsets working behind it. One is that of bureaucracy who never feel comfortable with the free media.

Now that they have become more partisan than ever and see their future more in sycophancy and less in merit, they prefer a gagged press that will be less prone to doing investigative journalism.

The other mindset is of a political party that sees an “enemy” behind every critical voice. It feels vulnerable to a free spirited media culture and is foolishly moving towards throttling it.

Attitude towards a free media as expressed in the policy is counter to history and the unrelenting march forward of the human spirit that only freedom can fulfill. This policy totally misjudges and is completely under valuing the contribution that the free media have made in Bangladesh's growth over the last three decades under democracy.

Here I would like to draw the government’s attention to the writings of Amartya Sen who has brilliantly articulated how freedom, especially that of the media, assist the process of development. His classic work “Freedom and Development” should be an eye opener to those who have formulated this policy.

Under the section “Miscellaneous” the following provisions need to be examined.

7.1. It says each broadcasting organisation will have to prepare a “charter of duties” and“editorial policy” in light of the present policy announced by the government and nothing the broadcasting channels can do which will be in contradiction with it. After preparing such “charter” and “policy” the broadcasting bodies will have to have them “approved” by the broadcast commission, which will be set up in the future. While waiting the setting up of the commission, the information ministry will have the power to “approve” them.

This is a direct threat to the freedom of the media and practically usurps the power of the“editorial institution” of the media and related freedom of operation. The editors and media personnel will have no right to use their freedom and creativity in running their channels. This also gives direct power to the ministry- read bureaucrats and their political masters- to interfere in the work of the media.

7.3 (put Bangla text)…..

This has been drafted by people who have no idea how broadcast media works. Imagine every TV channel running to “appropriate authority” for vetting every advertisement that they will broadcast. It is as if TV professionals have no “qualification” to judge the appropriateness of ads and that government bureaucrats, who have no exposure to media’s work have better “qualification” to judge the content of the said ad.

7.4 (use Bangla)

It says that information ministry will be the ultimate judge of matters “not covered by this policy” and in all other matters relating to “other policies and laws” that may be existing that are not well known. This provision is vague, too sweeping and covers a vast area. Every ministry and departments may have their own “policy guidelines” which then may be interpreted by the information ministry in a manner that bureaucracy usually does, which is against“peoples’ right to know”. This provision will greatly hamper the work of a free media.

7.5. Use Bangla

This is in no way conducive to free media freedom.

There is another serious danger that this policy poses, and one which has not been seriously discussed so far. If such a policy or something remotely close to it is adopted then our broadcast media runs the risk of becoming “dull and boring” Devoid of its freedom and chance to go for creative and entertaining programmes our channels will be producing programmes that will fail to attract the modern day viewers who are highly mobile and extremely demanding. This especially true for the young who are the “digital generation” and has no hesitation to shift their choice from channels that are boring to those who are more interesting and entertaining.

This will lead to audience shifting from our local channels to the foreign channels which, as we all know, are enormously popular in today Bangladesh. In fact our present TV channels have, in a big way, retrieved much of that shift through their modern programming. Bu such a policy, as prescribed, will force a switch of viewers which will be followed by a switch of advertisers. Such a shift will virtually cause a huge drop in audience and advertising. This may lead to the “slow death”[ of the local broadcasting industry.

We conclude by saying that we are not opposed to a Broadcasting policy per se. We want is a law that nurtures freedom and helps us to grow as a matured industry where maximum public service can be rendered while upholding the highest ethical standards of an ethical and free media.

To get such a law we think-as does the associations of journalists, association of broadcasters and others-that we should first have an Independent Broadcasting Commission that should frame a new law with the stakeholders as partners and not as victims.

Form the Independent Commission immediately and let it formulate the policy. Government has put the cart before the horse. In the end we say what we said at the start, government can throttle the media for the present, but free media will win in the end.

Mahfuz Anam is a celebrated editor of prestigious newsapaper The Daily Star and General Secretary of Bangladesh Editors Council